A blog by a software engineer turned registered patent attorney and litigator in Tampa, Florida following interesting developments in patents, copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property in the Middle District of Florida

Thursday, April 29, 2010

In case you haven't been following, the patent community is facing a new cottage industry of false marking claims where plaintiffs pursue those who have marked their goods as patented.

Falsely marking your goods as patented (or otherwise importing that a patent application has been filed), with an intent to deceive the public can subject you to a fine for false marking under the U.S. Patent Act. (emphasis explained below) The law provides that an offender "Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense." The law also created a "qui tam" action, where private citizens can enforce the law on behalf of the government, with half the recovery going to the private citizen, and the other half going to the U.S. government.

This begged the obvious question -- how does one define "every such offense?" If I falsely mark 1,000,000 articles as patented, is that 1 offense, or 1,000,000?

Back in December, 2009, the Federal Circuit addressed this question, and explained that the language of the statute is clear.

The statute's plain language [35 U.S.C. § 292] requires the penalty to be imposed on a per article basis.

The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool, Co. up to $500 for each item. The Federal Circuit remanded that decision to the trial court to determine the proper fine. The result was a $6,840 penalty -- half going to the U.S.

This decision was combined with another recent development. Plaintiffs noticed that many products were on the market with old patent numbers. These patents had expired, so plaintiffs began to argue that marking a product with an expired patent constituted false marking. The issue being litigated there is whether or not putting an expired patent number on a product, in and of itself, satisfied the "intent to deceive" element required to sustain a false marking claim. In Pequignot v. Solo Cup, the Federal Circuit (which recently heard oral argument), will determine what is the proper legal test for determining intent to deceive in false marking cases.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

In a former life, I was a software engineer. I got my masters in computer science from Stanford, then I worked at a number of startup companies in silicon valley. Mostly I developed backend server software for large scale, distributed applications.
Now I am a registered patent attorney, I am Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law by the Florida Bar, and rated AV Preeminent™ by Martindale Hubbell. I practice intellectual property law here in Tampa, Florida, helping clients protect their patents, copyrights, trademarks, innovations, brands, and other IP.

Twitter Updates (@wpollack)

AddThis

Disclaimer

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based on advertising alone.

I am licensed to practice law in Florida. I am also a registered patent attorney, licensed to practice law in front of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

By accessing and reading this blog, you acknowledge and understand that no attorney-client relationship has been formed and you further acknowledge and understand that this blog is not intended to constitute legal advice. Legal advice and counsel requires a fact-specific analysis of your particular legal issues, and you should thus obtain legal advice directly and individually from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

The views I express in my blog are mine, and mine alone. They do not represent the views of my employers, clients, friends, or anyone else. I claim all copyright and ownership of all items in my blog, except as otherwise expressly noted.